Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37091073›Full record

ReviewImplementation research and practice

Promoting rigor and sustainment in implementation science capacity building programs: A multi-method study.

Amy G Huebschmann, Shelly Johnston, Rachel Davis, Bethany M Kwan, Elvin Geng, Debra Haire-Joshu, Brittney Sandler, Demetria M McNeal, Ross C Brownson, Borsika A Rabin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Amy G HuebschmannAdult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU-Anschutz), Aurora, CO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-3142
Shelly JohnstonWashington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Rachel DavisHealth Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Implementation Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Bethany M KwanAdult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU-Anschutz), Aurora, CO, USA.
Elvin GengDepartment of Medicine (Division of Infectious Diseases), Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Debra Haire-JoshuWashington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Brittney SandlerDepartment of Medicine (Division of Infectious Diseases), Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Demetria M McNealAdult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU-Anschutz), Aurora, CO, USA.
Ross C BrownsonPrevention Research Center, Brown School at Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Borsika A RabinAdult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (CU-Anschutz), Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

Pragmatic Implementation Science Approaches to Assess and Enhance Value of Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Primary CareP50CA244688 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLASGOW, RUSSELL E · 2019 to 2023
$4.9M
IMPlementation to Achieve Clinical Transformation (IMPACT): The Colorado Training ProgramK12HL137862 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLASGOW, RUSSELL E, HAVRANEK, EDWARD PAUL · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244688NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL137862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The field of Implementation science (IS) continues to evolve, and the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) are in flux. These changes push the field to revisit the accepted IS competencies and to guide sustainment of ISCBPs. Our objectives were: (1) compare characteristics of current ISCBPs; (2) identify recommendations to support ISCBP sustainment; (3) measure how often ISCBPs address IS competencies; (4) identify novel and important IS competencies for the field. Method: This multi-method study included ISCBPs delivering structured, longitudinal IS training, excluding single courses and brief workshops. We used three complementary methods to meet our objectives. First, we identified ISCBPs via an internet search and snowball sampling methods. Second, we surveyed these ISCBPs to identify areas of program focus, types of trainees, IS competencies addressed, and recommendations to sustain ISCBPs. Third, we conducted a modified Delphi process with IS researchers/leaders to reach consensus on the IS competencies that were both important and novel as compared to the IS competencies published to date. Results: Among 74 eligible ISCBPs identified, 46 responded (62% response rate). Respondent ISCBPs represented diverse areas of focus (e.g., global health, cardiopulmonary disease) and trainee stages (e.g., graduate students, mid-career faculty). While most respondent ISCBPs addressed core IS methods, targeting IS competencies was less consistent (33% for nongraduate/non-fellowship ISCBPs; >90% for graduate/national ISCBPs). Our modified Delphi process identified eight novel and important IS competencies related to increasing health equity or the speed of translation. Recommendations to sustain ISCBPs included securing financial administrative support. Conclusions: Current ISCBPs train learners across varying career stages in diverse focus areas. To promote rigor, we recommend ISCBPs address specific IS competencies, with consideration of these eight novel/emerging competencies. We also recommend ISCBPs report on their IS competencies, focus area(s), and trainee characteristics. ISCBP programs need administrative financial support. Plain Language Summary: There is a limited workforce capacity to conduct implementation science (IS) research. To address this gap, the number and type of IS capacity building Programs (ISCBPs) focusing on training researchers and practitioners in IS methods continue to increase. Our efforts to comprehensively identify and describe ISCBPs for researchers and practitioners highlighted four implications for leaders of ISCBPs related to program sustainment and rigor. First, we identified a range of contextual characteristics of ISCBPs, including the research topics, methods, and IS competencies addressed, and the types of trainees accepted. Second, given the variability of trainee types and research, rigorous ISCBP programs should tailor the IS competencies and methods addressed to the skills needed by the types of trainees in their program. Third, the field of IS needs to periodically revisit the competencies needed with attention to the skills needed in the field. We used a consensus-building process with ISCBP leaders and other IS experts to expand existing IS competencies and identified eight important, novel IS competencies that broadly relate to promoting health equity and speeding the translation of research to practice. Finally, as more institutions consider developing ISCBPs, we identified factors needed to support ISCBP sustainment, including ongoing financial support. In addition to these implications for ISCBP leaders, there are also policy implications. For example, IS journals may enact policies to require manuscripts evaluating ISCBP performance to report on certain contextual characteristics, such as the IS competencies addressed and types of trainees accepted. The field may also consider developing an accreditation body to evaluate the rigor of ISCBP curricula.

Indexed as

buildingcurriculumequityimplementationresearch competencytraining

Identifiers

PMID37091073
PMCPMC9924281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.