ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Building capacity and advancing collaboration in dissemination and implementation science: insights from a multi-institutional partner network.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is essential for translating evidence into practice, yet capacity remains uneven across Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs and networks. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS) serves an 11-institution, multi-state Partner Network. Methods: We conducted a multi-phase assessment across the CCTS Partner Network. First, we performed qualitative interviews (April-June 2,025) with 18 stakeholders representing diverse roles and institutions to identify activities, barriers, and needs. Findings informed a needs assessment survey (February-March 2026) administered across the network ( Results: Qualitative findings revealed heterogeneous but growing D&I capacity, with gaps in training, infrastructure, and evaluation support. Participants reported limited formal training, strong demand for applied skills (e.g., study design, mixed methods, grant writing), and challenges in real-world implementation. Strong interest emerged in flexible, practice-oriented training and consultation services. Survey results reinforced these findings: although 49% of respondents identified as contributing to D&I, only 20% reported high expertise. Nearly half expressed strong interest in intensive short courses, particularly in frameworks, outcomes, and measurement. Consultation demand was high (77%), especially for study design, implementation strategies, and evaluation. Conclusions: There is strong engagement in D&I science, but gaps in expertise, infrastructure, and support persist. A coordinated strategy integrating structured training with centralized consultation and collaboration mechanisms is needed to strengthen D&I capacity. These findings informed implementation initiatives and illustrate a pragmatic approach that may inform D&I capacity-building efforts in other CTSA environments.
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.