ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Designing for dissemination through community advisory board engagement in an implementation mapping process: A case study.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to document the development of a Community Advisory Board (CAB) to enhance equitable dissemination of research findings within an implementation mapping study to enhance equitable impact of Universal School Meals (USM) through the Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability (D4DS) process. Methods: The D4DS process comprises 7 key elements to facilitate meaningful dissemination. To accomplish Step 1: Identify Partners, the research team conducted snowball recruitment methods within the local Philadelphia community and with existing connections. To Empathize and Outline the Problem (Step 2) and Understand the Context (Step 3), an interest meeting was held followed by monthly meetings. Our team Confirmed and Co-designed the Product (Step 4) and Developed the Dissemination Plan (Step 5) through collaborative brainstorming sessions. Finally, we started the Iterative Evaluation (Step 6) and Plan for Sustainability (Step 7) by administering a baseline and follow-up survey measuring CAB members' perceived utility, effectiveness, and sustainability of the board. Results: The final CAB included 8 members. The co-created dissemination products and plan comprised a 2-page infographic, social media toolkits, and a webinar slide deck, which were disseminated locally by the research team via presentations, websites, and email communication, in spring 2024. Initial findings from baseline and follow-up surveys indicated that CAB members benefited from skill development, compensation, writing credit, and autonomy in dissemination designing. Conclusions: Sharing power and decision-making enhanced the capacity for local-level dissemination, which is much needed to advance the science of community partnerships.
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.