Tailoring Dissemination of Evidence to Preferences of Tobacco Control Partners: Results From an Academic-community Partnership

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-927163/v1

Download PDF

Research

Tailoring Dissemination of Evidence to Preferences of Tobacco Control Partners: Results From an Academic-community Partnership

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-927163/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Tobacco control program leaders and their partners, who often present evidence to policymakers, can increase the use of evidence in program and policy development. However, up-to-date, evidence-based information from the scientific community about what works is slow to reach leaders. We describe efforts to understand and utilize tobacco control leaders’ preferences for receiving evidence and report on resulting dissemination strategies, translational products and outcomes.

Methods

This work is part of the Advancing Science and Practice in the Retail Environment (ASPiRE) Center, an interdisciplinary research center focused on understanding and evaluating tobacco retail policy. Participants were members of the ASPiRE Community Advisory Board (CAB), comprised of tobacco control leaders from 30 metropolitan areas representing all regions of the US plus nine representatives from leading national tobacco control organizations (N=39). During meetings in February 2019 and October 2020, all CAB members were invited to participate in live polls consisting of six survey questions each. Questions addressed preferences for receiving scientific evidence and their anticipated use of ASPiRE translational products. Responses were analyzed descriptively and informed translational product development and communications with ASPiRE contact list members (N»125). ASPiRE email and website interactions were tracked from March 2019 to May 2021 as a complementary indication of content use.

Results

Response rates for 2019 and 2020 CAB meetings were 66% (n=26) and 59% (n=23), respectively. CAB members indicated preferences for email communication (33%) and webinars (31%), communications once per month (46%), and short-format documents (28%). In response, the team developed translational short-format products including case studies, fact sheets, and research briefs. On average, 52% (SD=14%) of recipients opened the newsletter and 17% (SD=9%) clicked a link within the newsletter. Overall, 95% of responding CAB members found the products useful and all responding CAB members reported using them to communicate evidence to policymakers, staff, and coalition members.

Conclusions

Our successful dissemination approach to making evidence more accessible and useable for tobacco control leaders could be adapted by researchers working with community partners to assess and respond to stakeholders’ preferences for receiving evidence in other areas of health policy.

Other Public Policy

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Dissemination

Policy Implementation

Academic-Community Partnership

Tobacco Control

Health Communications

Community Advisory Board

Tobacco use has declined significantly in the last two decades, by approximately 60 million people globally.(1) Much of this decline is due to the adoption and implementation of evidence-based tobacco control policies. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global treaty open for signature in 2003, and the MPOWER package, a set of evidence-based strategies to reduce tobacco use developed in 2008, represent early efforts to promote evidence-informed tobacco control polices. As of 2020, 146 countries have adopted at least one MPOWER intervention, protecting 5.3 billion people from the harmful effects of tobacco.(2)

Yet even with these notable successes, tobacco use remains a leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and globally.(3, 4) As of 2019, more than 8 million people die annually from tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure,(5) with more than 80% of people who use tobacco living in low- and middle-income countries.(4) Tobacco control efforts are widely variable across countries, with low- and middle-income countries implementing fewer comprehensive evidence-based tobacco control policies. In the U.S., tobacco control progress is also unevenly distributed across communities resulting in some communities experiencing higher than average tobacco use and tobacco-related health outcomes.(6) For instance, regional disparities exist in adoption of comprehensive smoke-free policies, with fewer protective policies in rural areas and tobacco-growing states, especially in the South.(7) Many of these same states also lack strong tobacco tax policies.(8) These states have higher prevalence of heart disease, which can be in part attributed to tobacco use.

In the U.S., evidence-based policies have traditionally proliferated from the ground up, with municipalities serving as test beds for innovative policies.(9, 10) This is especially true in tobacco control policy. For instance, comprehensive smoke-free laws and tobacco retail policies have often been implemented earlier and more widely at the local level before moving to federal levels.(11) As of January 2021, there were more than 1100 local and 28 state comprehensive smoke-free laws covering more than 60% of Americans.(12)

However, the effective adoption and implementation of evidence-informed health policies is often a complex and painstaking process, even at the local level.(10) Differences in culture between policy makers and scientists, complex scientific outcomes, and the applicability of the evidence to current, often rapidly evolving public health issues are among the factors that make evidence-informed policy more difficult.(11) Within the U.S., tobacco control leaders (e.g., health department program managers, health commissioners, and advocates) at state and local levels represent potential bridging actors between researchers and policy makers to help integrate scientific evidence into policy development.(12, 13) Tobacco control leaders are responsible for implementing health programs and policies, developing policies for public health issues prioritized by elected officials, and presenting policy impacts to elected officials. As such, targeting tobacco control leaders as part of dissemination efforts by scientists has the potential to enhance the integration of scientific evidence into policy.

Active approaches, which pushes evidence towards end users, can facilitate the successful integration of evidence into health policy by tobacco control leaders.(10, 14, 15)As an initial step, assessing intended audience preferences can help guide researchers’ efforts to disseminate evidence through channels accessible and preferable for the intended audience (e.g., email, websites, or hard copies) and in a format that is understandable and usable for the intended audience (e.g., briefs or infographics rather than scientific articles). A growing body of research within dissemination and implementation science suggests a number of preferences to consider while designing and tailoring dissemination approaches including:

The needs and characteristics of the intended audience, for example, limited available capacity and time to digest and synthesize the body of scientific literature on a particular health issue among policy makers.(16)
The presentation of evidence in a format and dissemination channel that is accessible and desirable. Some policy audiences prefer short documents while others prefer full-length scientific articles. Some prefer electronic documents while others prefer paper documents. For instance, in a previous survey of 12 state health departments and affiliated partner organizations, participants preferred receiving research evidence through webinars and workshops and most frequently used research findings for assessment and evaluation, funding, and intervention selection.(17)
The content of the evidence and its relevance to the public health issue. For instance, presentation of a story-like narrative rather than lengthy statistical presentations, data visualizations over tables, and cost-effectiveness evidence. Information that is clear and actionable with recommendations.
Organizational and community factors like community opinion about a particular public health issue.

However, there are few practical and feasible examples of how to use community stakeholder preferences to guide dissemination efforts among tobacco control leaders and tobacco control policy audiences more generally.

We report our efforts to translate and disseminate scientific evidence about tobacco control policy through the Advancing Science and Practice in the Retail Environment (ASPiRE) Center, a National Cancer Institute–funded interdisciplinary tobacco retail policy research center. ASPiRE aims to build a strong scientific evidence base for effective retail policies to help reduce tobacco use, tobacco-related disparities, and the public health burden of tobacco use.(18) As part of the ASPiRE Center, the Dissemination and Implementation Core (D&I Core) works to improve the communication, adoption, and impact of ASPiRE-generated research as well as other emerging scientific evidence by generating translational products according to Brownson and colleagues’ Designing for Dissemination principles.(22, 23) This work is conducted in partnership with a community advisory board (CAB) of tobacco control leaders, directors, and advocates. The D&I Core helps maximize the impact of ASPiRE research by facilitating the push of scientific evidence produced by ASPiRE to the community as well as the pull of this evidence from practitioners participating in the CAB (Fig. 1).(20)

Toward this goal, ASPiRE Center researchers engage with the CAB formally on a bi-annual basis and informally so the CAB can provide guidance to ASPiRE research teams about retail policy activity and research needs, provide feedback on data collection instruments, identify sources of data concerning licensed tobacco retailers in participating cities and counties, and help disseminate research findings and policy tools to the field. As part of these meetings, the D&I Core team provides updates about new tobacco control science and materials available to CAB members and gathers information from CAB members about evidence needs.

With the goal of enhancing the translational pipeline to increase use of scientific evidence in tobacco control policy, we describe our efforts to understand CAB members’ preferences for receiving evidence. We then provide examples of how we used reported preferences to develop translational materials and shape dissemination efforts. Finally, we describe CAB members’ reported engagement and use of disseminated materials.

The work for the current study was carried out in three phases. First, we conducted a survey eliciting information from CAB members regarding their preferences for scientific evidence. We then developed a variety of translational products to disseminate scientific evidence in response to the outcomes of CAB members’ reported preferences. We conducted a follow up survey with CAB members to understand whether and how they used the disseminated products. We also tracked usage on two of our developed products: the ASPiRE website and a bi-monthly newsletter. This project was determined to be non-human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis.

Eligibility and Recruitment

Recruited participants were members of the ASPiRE Community Advisory Board (CAB). Individuals were identified and invited to join the CAB through the Big Cities Health Coalition(25), two southern cities (Atlanta and New Orleans) were added for geographic diversity, and Providence was added for early adoption of novel policies. The CAB is comprised of tobacco control program managers, public health directors, and advocates from 30 large metropolitan areas representing all regions of the United States and several representatives from leading national tobacco control organizations (e.g., Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health, & the Public Health Law Center). Metropolitan areas represented on the CAB are illustrated in Fig. 2.

Data Collection.

Data were collected during our first and second CAB meetings in February 2019 and October 2020, respectively. All CAB members in attendance were invited to participate in a live poll using Poll Everywhere online software.(26) At each meeting participants were surveyed using six close-ended, multiple choice questions. Questions and responses are provided in Figs. 3 and 5. Questions were developed by D&I Core team members in conjunction with the CAB chair. The conclusion of the questionnaire provided an optional write-in section for participants to provide additional thoughts or feedback. Questions asked for the February 2019 meeting focused on dissemination preferences and intended uses of disseminated products. In October 2020, questions focused on actual use of disseminated products. Participation in the questionnaires was completely voluntary, each question was optional, and participation was anonymous. Potentially identifying information (e.g., participant mentioning their location or organization) is not reported in this manuscript.

Data analysis.

Results from the questionnaires were managed and analyzed using R statistical programming language version 4.0.3.(27) At each time point, descriptive statistics were reported for questionnaire response options including absolute frequency, relative frequency, and an error term, where appropriate. Questionnaire results were visualized for ease of interpretation, and open-ended responses were reported via themes and exemplar quotes.

Following a short description of CAB meetings and participants, we report findings from surveying CAB members on their dissemination preferences. We then describe the translational activities and products developed in response to those preferences. We also provide CAB member self-reported use of the evidence and results from an evaluation of CAB member satisfaction with the tailored dissemination efforts.

Participants

Thirty-three of 39 CAB members attended the February 2019 in-person meeting, hosted by the Washington University in St. Louis research team. Twenty-three of 39 CAB members attended the October 2020 conference call via Zoom. Response rates for 2019 and 2020 CAB meetings were 66% (n = 26) and 59% (n = 23), respectively. Most individuals served as the manager or director level in their organizations.

Dissemination Preferences

Respondents indicated a preference for receiving information primarily by email (33%), followed closely by webinars (31%) over other channels to hear about new retail policy resources. There was also interest in receiving information through websites, blogs, and conferences. Participants indicated very little to no interest in receiving information through social media or mail. Many (46%) preferred an update once per month.

Participants desired a number of different formats for receiving scientific evidence. Figure 3 demonstrates the variety of materials that participants wanted. Fact sheets summarizing the current scientific evidence for an issue were the primary request, although there was also strong interest in a number of other products including case studies describing how polices had been implemented in other locales, policy briefs summarizing the characteristics and potential impacts of specific tobacco control policies, and infographics about tobacco control and use. Of note, participants indicated almost no interest in full-length reports or scientific manuscripts. When asked with whom they would share ASPiRE products, participants indicated they would share this evidence with other audiences including city council members or other policy makers, community members, and staff within their own departments.

Product Development

The D&I Core team developed a number of translational products showcasing the work of ASPiRE research teams and other emergent research in tobacco control. In selecting product formats, the team was responsive to CAB member requests for fact sheets and similar briefer documents. Since the start of the ASPiRE project (September 2019), the D&I core team has published 10 presentations or posters, 90 city-specific fact sheets, and 4 brief reports. Products were disseminated through the ASPiRE Center website, the semi-monthly ASPiRE eNews electronic newsletter, and conference presentations. We highlight several examples, particularly those with high uptake and use by CAB members, in Fig. 4.

In response to CAB preferences for evidence dissemination modes, all materials to date have been shared with the CAB through multiple channels, including by email to CAB members, via virtual CAB meetings, and by posting on the ASPiRE website. The ASPiRE website (aspirecenter.org) was launched in April 2020 as a communication and dissemination channel for sharing not only ASPiRE research findings, but also other retail policy resources, news, and updates from partner organizations. The website serves as an example of how our D&I Core has been responsive to CAB member feedback on several counts. First, ‘Internet’ was one of the top three channels identified in CAB member responses to the communication channel polling question. Second, the website houses a resource library that includes all types of materials requested by CAB members (e.g., fact sheets, case studies, and infographics) and was designed for a broad audience of individuals working in tobacco retail policy and research, including those identified by CAB members (e.g., tobacco control staff, policy makers, community members). And third, the website is an ideal platform for responsive sharing of timely, relevant, and tailored ‘News & Updates’ identified by ASPiRE team members, CAB members, and partners across the life of the ASPiRE project. As of July 2021, 58 items have been posted in three categories: ASPiRE Updates, In the News, and Other Retail Resources.

While the website serves as both a channel for dissemination and a product, the D&I Core also developed a number of static products. As an example, the D&I Core collaborated with ASPiRE’s Big Cities project at Stanford University to develop three sets of city-specific products: 1)Tobacco Retail Density Fact Sheets, 2) Tobacco Swamps Maps, and 3) Tobacco Sales Fact Sheets, which provide detailed information about tobacco retail density and proximity, areas of heavy retailer concentration, and tobacco sales, respectively.(28) For the first and third products, the D&I Core informally solicited input and incorporated feedback from two CAB members to ensure the products were understandable and useful. For the Tobacco Sales Fact Sheets product specifically, in keeping with active dissemination approaches of tailoring products for specific audiences, the D&I Core developed a one-page digest as a ‘cover’ to the 2 pages of detailed sales data. The CAB members who provided feedback shared their intention to use the detailed data sheets in their own internal planning and the one-page digest when speaking with policy makers. The D&I Core also worked with the Tobacco Town project at Washington University in St. Louis to disseminate the Tobacco Swamps Dashboard, a city-specific, interactive dashboard which allows the user to project potential impacts of retailer policies for each locale (https://aspirecenter.org/tobacco-swamps/). All aforementioned products featured summary ‘fast facts’ about the data, data visualizations (e.g., charts, maps, and infographics), plain language interpretations of the findings, and ASPiRE branding.

Product Dissemination and Engagement

On average, 61% (SD 7%) of CAB members opened the newsletter per month and 21% (SD 9%) clicked on a resource link within the newsletter. In our Fall 2020 CAB meeting, almost all (95%) CAB participants felt the newsletter was useful or very useful and was delivered at the right frequency, and 95% visited aspirecenter.org at least once in the first six months. Website analytics also suggest wider dissemination outside of CAB members. From April 2020 through July 2020 there were over 5,000 users and over 18,000 individual page views. Through the website, 46 additional (non-CAB) individuals signed up to receive communications from ASPiRE including ASPiRE eNews.

In addition to the website, a follow-up poll of CAB members in October of 2020 showed that a majority (14/20) had used these products to inform their work. CAB members reported using a variety of additional ASPiRE products (Fig. 5, left). They also shared these products with several other stakeholders (Fig. 5, right), although these stakeholders differed slightly from their anticipated use reported in the first CAB meeting (Fig. 3).

Additionally, in August 2020, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (a CAB member organization) and ASPiRE disseminated these retailer density resources in a joint multi-city media campaign to focus attention on the proximity of tobacco retailers to schools and the high retail density in low-income neighborhoods. The reach of and audience engagement with the two-week campaign was substantial: over 3 million broadcast viewers, radio listeners, and on-line readers in more than two dozen of the nation’s largest media markets viewed or heard the information. The campaign also resulted in a 438% increase in traffic to the aspirecenter.org website.

Similar to other areas of public health and social policy, the implementation of evidence-based tobacco control policies remains the most effective and sustainable type of public health intervention to reduce tobacco use, tobacco-related disparities, and the public health burden of tobacco use. Policy evidence translation and dissemination are crucial for the development and promotion of evidence-informed policies yet remain understudied areas of research.(11) This study assessed dissemination and translational preferences as well as reported use of evidence among a group of local tobacco control leaders within the context of researcher-initiated dissemination efforts as part of a tobacco control research center. Our research supports previous studies’ conclusions that policy audiences, including those who work in tobacco control policy, prefer to receive scientific evidence translated into formats that are shorter and more accessible than scientific manuscripts and prefer evidence be disseminated through channels other than those typical of academia, like research conferences or journals.(15, 19, 29) Brief, highly-tailored formats disseminated periodically and electronically were the most preferred among our CAB members.

Successful tobacco control interventions have long relied upon appropriate and broad dissemination strategies.(30, 31) Our work extends the current literature by demonstrating how collaborating with practitioners to develop useful translational products can help to successfully disseminate evidence to intended audiences that serve important bridging roles to promote evidence-informed policymaking. By leveraging translational product design and Designing for Dissemination principles,(22, 23) we strived to make products tailored and succinct, as with our city-specific fact sheets for instance, which adhere to the preferences of our audience.

In addition, eliciting feedback from those on the ground, in our case program leaders and partners, about their needs for evidence and product preferences given their local policy environment helped our team identify appropriate translational strategies, enhance the relevance of evidence, and shorten the lag between scientific discovery and practice. We are further encouraged by reports from our CAB members indicating they shared these materials with stakeholders, including staff, community partners, and policymakers, which suggests that our approach to dissemination likely resulted in further reach and engagement than it would have otherwise. Community-based participatory research in tobacco control also has the potential to increase reach in historically marginalized communities and populations.(32)

As funders and governments encourage attention to leveraging scientific evidence for better policy impact,(33) there are several ways researchers can enhance the reach of their own work and replicate the process that we have described here. As we have demonstrated, community-research partnerships which integrate community perspectives and preferences early in the research process help improve the relevance and demand or pull for evidence. Though the dissemination preferences of CAB members reported here may be relevant broadly to intersectoral partnerships for evidence-based health policy dissemination and implementation, health policy researchers should also intentionally assess the contextual factors, needs, and preferences of their specific intended audience. We recommend a similar approach that leverages evidence-based design principles. We also recommend being as responsive as possible to preferences to expeditiously meet the pull from the intended audience for scientific evidence. In our experience the benefit is threefold. First, it increases the chances that evidence will be used in the field, beyond academia. Second, it enhances the usability of the evidence and decreases the lag time we frequently observe from the generation of evidence and integration into policy. Third, responding to community preferences and requests creates a mutually beneficial, working partnership between scientists and communities that provides valuable insights for the scientific community into innovative policy work and trends that are happening on the ground and areas for future research.

For investigators who may be new to the field of dissemination for policymaking, there are several training opportunities to help become familiar with common dissemination frameworks, concepts, and approaches (like Designing for Dissemination) to help integrate their research into policy. Additionally, given the importance of community-based work to advancing health equity, it is important for researchers to know how to present and share information that will be used by - and shared by - community members.(34–36) We also recognize that it is often difficult for researchers, who are competing with other academic demands, to develop the skill set needed for product development. Our D&I core consists of a multidisciplinary team with varied expertise including tobacco control policy research, dissemination and implementation research, graphic design, website design, dashboard development, and journalism. We recommend that other investigators consider collaborating with individuals who hold similar expertise to facilitate dissemination efforts. Because funders, e.g., The National Institutes of Health, are increasingly supporting dissemination efforts, including or contracting individuals with additional skill sets that enhance translation and dissemination of evidence is now more feasible.(37)

Limitations

As a tenet of implementation science, context should be taken into consideration when planning dissemination and implementation efforts, and a one size fits all approach is likely to only be minimally effective.(38, 39) As such, the results reported here may not be generalizable to different communities. However, the process for gathering information to better understand preferences and developing products for dissemination is widely replicable. The survey used in this study was developed by the ASPiRE Center as part of evaluation efforts and was not assessed for validity and reliability. Not all CAB members attended the meetings where the questionnaires were administered. There could be systematic differences in CAB members who were unable to participate, and tailoring communication and dissemination efforts to this population might promote engagement and evidence adoption.

As global momentum for retail-based tobacco control policy interventions continues to grow, considering stakeholder preferences for how evidence is translated to those who can take policy action is increasingly important. Policy researchers in academic environments can enhance the value and impact of their work by promoting awareness, uptake, and integration of research findings in the generation of evidence-informed health policies. The approach taken here for surveying intended audiences and responding to feedback by tailoring dissemination products and efforts could serve as an exemplar for health policy researchers engaged in intersectoral partnerships for improved evidence translation and use in policy development.

ASPiRE – Advancing Science and Practice in the Retail Environment

CAB – Community Advisory Board

D&I – Dissemination and Implementation

Ethics approval and consent to participate. Research and data collection protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis. A waver of informed consent for participating in the study was provided because data were collected anonymously.

Consent for publication. Not applicable.

Availability of Data and Materials. The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the small size of the data set which may reveal particulars about specific individuals or locales.

Competing interests. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Funding. This work is part of Advancing Science & Practice in the Retail Environment (ASPiRE) Center, funded by the National Cancer Institute #P01-CA225597. This work was also supported by Grant Number T32 HL130357 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Authors’ contributions. VM, MV, LB, SA, TP, AE, and MM contributed to the introduction and discussion. MV, LB, and SA contributed to the methods sections. TC analyzed data and wrote the quantitative results. LB, SA, and AE described product development in the results. VM and MM wrote the discussion with support and contributions from all other authors. VM provided overall oversight for manuscript development.

Acknowledgements. Not applicable.

1. WHO. WHO global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco use 2000-2025, third edition [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-global-report-on-trends-in-prevalence-of-tobacco-use-2000-2025-third-edition

2. World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021 [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/tobacco-control/global-tobacco-report-2021

3. CDC. Fast Facts | Fact Sheets | Smoking & Tobacco Use | CDC [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm

4. WHO. Tobacco [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco

5. World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2019 : offer help to quit tobacco use [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516204

6. Farrelly MC, Chaloupka FJ, Berg CJ, Emery SL, Henriksen L, Ling P, et al. Taking Stock of Tobacco Control Program and Policy Science and Impact in the United States HHS Public Access. J Addict Behav Ther. 2017;1(2).

7. Hafez AY, Gonzalez M, Kulik MC, Vijayaraghavan M, Glantz SA. Uneven Access to Smoke-Free Laws and Policies and Its Effect on Health Equity in the United States: 2000-2019. American journal of public health [Internet]. 2019/09/19. 2019 Nov;109(11):1568–75. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31536405

8. Truth Initiative. Tobacco Nation: An Ongoing Crisis [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Aug 25]. Available from: https://truthinitiative.org/sites/default/files/media/files/2019/06/Tobacco-Nation-An-Ongoing-Crisis.pdf

9. Hird JA, editor. Policy analysis in the United States [Internet]. 1st ed. Bristol University Press; 2018. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt22h6q1x

10. Health NC for CDP and HP (US) O on S and. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2014 [cited 2021 Sep 8]. 1–36. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/

11. Ribisl KM, Mills SD. Explaining the Rapid Adoption of Tobacco 21 Policies in the United States. https://doi.org/102105/AJPH2019305269 [Internet]. 2019 Oct 2 [cited 2021 Aug 25];109(11):1483–5. Available from: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/

12. American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundations. U.S. 100% Smokefree Laws in Non-Hospitality Workplaces AND Restaurants AND Bars [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Aug 25]. Available from: https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/WRBLawsMap.pdf

13. Brownson RC, Dodson EA, Stamatakis KA, Casey CM, Elliott MB, Luke DA, et al. Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2011;103(4):306–16.

14. Purtle, J., Dodson, E., Brownson R. Policy Dissemination Research. In: Brownson, R., Colditz, G., Proctor E, editor. Dissemination and implementation research in health. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 433–48.

15. Ashcraft LE, Quinn DA, Brownson RC. Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review. Implementation Science [Internet]. 2020;15(89). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01046-3

16. Purtle J, Lê-Scherban F, Nelson KL, Shattuck PT, Proctor EK, Brownson RC. State mental health agency officials’ preferences for and sources of behavioral health research. Vol. 17, Psychological Services. Purtle, Jonathan: Department of Health Management and Policy, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, 3215 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, US, 19104, [email protected]: Educational Publishing Foundation; 2020. p. 93–7.

17. Owen N, Goode A, Koohsari MJ, Healy G, Fjeldsoe B, Eakin E. Designing for Dissemination in Chronic Disease Prevention and Management. In: Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. 2017. p. 107–20.

18. Cilenti D, Brownson RC, Umble K, Campbell Erwin P, Summers R. Information-seeking behaviors and other factors contributing to successful implementation of evidence-based practices in local health departments HHS Public Access. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012;18(6):571–6.

19. Shroff Z, Aulakh B, Gilson L, Agyepong IA, El-Jardali F, Ghaffar A. Incorporating research evidence into decision-making processes: researcher and decision-maker perceptions from five low- and middle-income countries. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2015;13(70).

20. Jacob RR, Allen PM, Ahrendt LJ, Brownson RC. Learning About and Using Research Evidence Among Public Health Practitioners. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2017;52(3, Supplement 3):S304–8.

21. Home - ASPiRE Center [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 24]. Available from: https://aspirecenter.org/

22. 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. American Journal of Public Health. 2013;103(9):1693–9.

23. Andersen S, Brossart L, Ballard R, Endrizal A, Hackett R, Namwase AS, et al. Getting from Evidence to Action: Design Principles for Translational Products. Health Services Research. 2021;under reivew.

24. Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Green LW. Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research. Annual review of public health. 2018;39(1):27–53.

25. Big Cities Health Coalition. Homepage - Big Cities Health Coalition [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 8]. Available from: https://www.bigcitieshealth.org/

26. Host interactive online meetings | Poll Everywhere [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 24]. Available from: https://www.polleverywhere.com/

27. Team RC. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. Available from: https://www.r-project.org

28. Tobacco Retailer Density Fact Sheets for 30 CAB Cities - ASPiRE Center [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 24]. Available from: https://aspirecenter.org/resources/tobacco-retailer-density-fact-sheets-for-30-cab-cities/

29. Haynes A, Rowbotham SJ, Redman S, Brennan S, Williamson A, Moore G. What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2018;16(1):31.

30. Kerner J, Rimer B, Emmons K. Introduction to the special section on dissemination: dissemination research and research dissemination: how can we close the gap? Health Psychology. 2005;24(5):443.

31. Green LW, Orleans CT, Ottoson JM, Cameron R, Pierce JP, Bettinghaus EP. Inferring Strategies for Disseminating Physical Activity Policies, Programs, and Practices from the Successes of Tobacco Control. 2006; Available from: www.ajpm-online.net

32. Robertson C, Mamudu HM, Littleton M, Boghozian R, Owusu D, Collins C, et al. Using a Collaborative Approach to Tobacco Control Efforts in Marginalized Communities [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://ojphi.org

33. D&I Planning | Diversity Council Australia [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 24]. Available from: https://www.dca.org.au/di-planning

34. Brownson RC, Kumanyika SK, Kreuter MW, Haire-Joshu D. Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implementation Science [Internet]. 2021;16(1):28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0

35. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-Based Participatory Research Contributions to Intervention Research: The Intersection of Science and Practice to Improve Health Equity. American Journal of Public Health [Internet]. 2010 Apr 1;100(S1):S40–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036

36. Shelton RC, Nooraie RY, Kwan BM, Cohn E, Auyoung M, Roberts MC, et al. Implementation, Policy and Community Engagement Special Communication Advancing health equity through CTSA programs: Opportunities for interaction between health equity, dissemination and implementation, and translational science. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science [Internet]. 4:168–75. Available from: www.cambridge.org/cts

37. National Institutes of Health. NIH Policy on the Dissemination of NIH-Funded Clinical Trial Information | grants.nih.gov [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 5]. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/understanding/nih-policy.htm

38. Squires JE, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Michie S, Francis JJ, Sales A, et al. Identifying the domains of context important to implementation science: a study protocol. Implementation Science. 2015;

39. Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Services Research [Internet]. 2019;19(1):189. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major Revision
30 Nov, 2021
Review #1 received at journal
18 Oct, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
10 Oct, 2021
Reviews received at journal
29 Sep, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
28 Sep, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
23 Sep, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
22 Sep, 2021
Submission checks completed at journal
22 Sep, 2021
Editor invited by journal
22 Sep, 2021
First submitted to journal
22 Sep, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Tailoring Dissemination of Evidence to Preferences of Tobacco Control Partners: Results From an Academic-community Partnership

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Eligibility and Recruitment

Data analysis.

Results

Participants

Dissemination Preferences

Product Development

Product Dissemination and Engagement

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1