ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2020
Perspectives of scientists on disseminating research findings to non-research audiences.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissemination Strategies From an HIV Self-Testing Intervention Among Adolescents and Young Adults in Nigeria: Crowdsourcing Open Call Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Advancing the impact of research through a dissemination-focused special interest group.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- The Acceptability, Safety and Impact of a Play Co-Developed With Public Contributors as a Format for Disseminating Research on a Sensitive Subject.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- A qualitative exploration of disseminating research findings among public health researchers in China.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Dissemination of medical research findings among medical researchers in a tertiary institution in Uganda.African health sciences · 2024Article
- Researchers' views on and practices of knowledge translation: an international survey of transfusion medicine researchers.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- The snapshot audit methodology: design, implementation and analysis of prospective observational cohort studies in surgery.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Review
- "There's no money in community dissemination": A mixed methods analysis of researcher dissemination-as-usual.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Perceived benefits, challenges, and recommendations for HIV research dissemination and implementation science efforts in Tanzania: Findings from the HIV/AIDS Research Forum brainstorming session.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings.
methodsThe study explored D&I scientists' experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work.
resultsSurveys 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) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 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) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders.
conclusionsOur findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.