4.4 Article

What Predicts Dissemination Efforts Among Public Health Researchers in the United States?

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS
Volume 129, Issue 4, Pages 361-368

Publisher

ASSOC SCHOOLS PUBLIC HEALTH
DOI: 10.1177/003335491412900411

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (the Prevention Research Centers Program) [U48/DP001903]
  2. Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1 TR000448, KL2 TR000450]
  3. Implementation Research Institute (IRI) at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis through National Institute of Mental Health [R25 MH080916-01A2]
  4. Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research & Development Service, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We identified factors related to dissemination efforts by researchers to non-research audiences to reduce the gap between research generation and uptake in public health practice. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers at universities, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and CDC. We identified scientists using a search of public health journals and lists from government-sponsored research. The scientists completed a 35-item online survey in 2012. Using multivariable logistic regression, we compared self-rated effort to disseminate findings to non-research audiences (excellent/good vs. poor) across predictor variables in three categories: perceptions or reasons to disseminate, perceived expectation by employer/funders, and professional training and experience. Results. One-third of researchers rated their dissemination efforts as poor. Many factors were significantly related to whether a researcher rated him/herself as excellent/good, including obligation to disseminate findings (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1, 6.8), dissemination important for their department (OR=2.3, 95% CI 1.2, 4.5), dissemination expected by employer (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.2) or by funder (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.3, 3.2), previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=4.4, 95% CI 2.1, 9.3), and university researchers with Prevention Research Center affiliation vs. NIH researchers (OR=4.7, 95% CI 1.4, 15.7). With all variables in the model, dissemination expected by funder (OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1) and previous work in a practice/policy setting (OR=3.5, OR 1.7, 7.1) remained significant. Conclusions. These findings support the need for structural changes to the system, including funding agency priorities and participation of researchers in practice- and policy-based experiences, which may enhance efforts to disseminate by researchers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available