MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588376389 · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.005

Dissemination and Implementation Science Training Needs: Insights From Practitioners and Researchers

2017· article· en· W2588376389 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel G. Tabak, Margaret Padek, Jon Kerner, Kurt C. Stange, Enola K. Proctor, Maureen Dobbins, Graham A. Colditz, David Chambers, Ross C. Brownson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionClinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve UniversityInstitute of Clinical and Translational SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsBrainstormingContext (archaeology)Medical educationMultidisciplinary approachCurriculumPsychologyKnowledge managementMedicineComputer sciencePedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Dissemination and implementation research training has great potential to improve the impact and reach of health-related research; however, research training needs from the end user perspective are unknown. This paper identifies and prioritizes dissemination and implementation research training needs. METHODS: A diverse sample of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers was invited to participate in Concept Mapping in 2014-2015. Phase 1 (Brainstorming) gathered participants' responses to the prompt: To improve the impact of research evidence in practice and policy settings, a skill in which researchers need more training is… The resulting statement list was edited and included subsequent phases. Phase 2 (Sorting) asked participants to sort each statement into conceptual piles. In Phase 3 (Rating), participants rated the difficulty and importance of incorporating each statement into a training curriculum. A multidisciplinary team synthesized and interpreted the results in 2015-2016. RESULTS: During Brainstorming, 60 researchers and 60 practitioners/policymakers contributed 274 unique statements. Twenty-nine researchers and 16 practitioners completed sorting and rating. Nine concept clusters were identified: Communicating Research Findings, Improve Practice Partnerships, Make Research More Relevant, Strengthen Communication Skills, Develop Research Methods and Measures, Consider and Enhance Fit, Build Capacity for Research, and Understand Multilevel Context. Though researchers and practitioners had high agreement about importance (r =0.93) and difficulty (r =0.80), ratings differed for several clusters (e.g., Build Capacity for Research). CONCLUSIONS: Including researcher and practitioner perspectives in competency development for dissemination and implementation research identifies skills and capacities needed to conduct and communicate contextualized, meaningful, and relevant research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.276
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.455
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2760.455
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0220.020
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.484
GPT teacher head0.707
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Preventive MedicineSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207