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

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2022-12-25 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895221146261
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
{"title":"Promoting rigor and sustainment in implementation science capacity building programs: A multi-method study.","authors":"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","doi":"10.1177/26334895221146261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9924281/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221146261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

促进科学能力建设项目实施的严谨性和持续性:一项多方法研究。
背景:实施科学(IS)领域不断发展,IS能力建设项目(ISCBP)的数量和类型也在不断变化。这些变化促使该领域重新审视公认的信息系统能力,并指导ISCBP的维持。我们的目标是:(1)比较当前ISCBP的特点;(2) 确定支持ISCBP维持的建议;(3) 衡量ISCBP处理IS能力的频率;(4) 确定该领域新的和重要的信息系统能力。方法:这项多方法研究包括ISCBP提供结构化、纵向的IS培训,不包括单一课程和简短的研讨会。我们使用了三种互补的方法来实现我们的目标。首先,我们通过互联网搜索和滚雪球抽样方法确定了ISCBP。其次,我们调查了这些ISCBP,以确定项目重点领域、受训人员类型、所解决的IS能力以及维持ISCBP的建议。第三,我们与信息系统研究人员/领导者进行了修改后的德尔菲过程,以就信息系统能力达成共识,与迄今为止公布的信息系统能力相比,这些能力既重要又新颖。结果:在74个符合条件的ISCBP中,46个有应答(应答率62%)。受访者ISCBP代表了不同的关注领域(如全球健康、心肺疾病)和实习阶段(如研究生、职业中期教师)。虽然大多数受访者的ISCBP涉及核心IS方法,但针对IS能力的一致性较差(非学历/非研究生ISCBP为33%;研究生/国家ISCBP为>90%)。我们改进的德尔菲过程确定了八种与提高健康公平或翻译速度有关的新颖而重要的信息系统能力。维持ISCBP的建议包括确保财政行政支持。结论:目前的ISCBP在不同的职业阶段、不同的重点领域对学习者进行培训。为了提高严谨性,我们建议ISCBP解决特定的IS能力,同时考虑这八种新的/新兴的能力。我们还建议ISCBP报告其IS能力、重点领域和受训人员的特点。ISCBP项目需要行政财政支持。简明的语言总结:进行实施科学(is)研究的劳动力能力有限。为了解决这一差距,专注于培训研究人员和从业者的信息系统能力建设项目的数量和类型不断增加。我们为研究人员和从业者全面识别和描述ISCBP的努力,强调了与项目持续性和严格性相关的ISCBP领导者的四个含义。首先,我们确定了ISCBP的一系列背景特征,包括研究主题、方法和所涉及的IS能力,以及接受的受训人员类型。其次,考虑到受训人员类型和研究的可变性,严格的ISCBP项目应根据其项目中受训人员类型所需的技能,调整IS能力和方法。第三,信息系统领域需要定期重新审视所需的能力,同时关注该领域所需的技能。我们与ISCBP领导人和其他信息系统专家进行了共识建立过程,以扩大现有的信息系统能力,并确定了八项重要的、新颖的信息系统技能,这些技能与促进健康公平和加快研究转化为实践广泛相关。最后,随着越来越多的机构考虑开发ISCBP,我们确定了支持ISCBP维持所需的因素,包括持续的财政支持。除了对ISCBP领导人的这些影响外,还有政策影响。例如,信息系统期刊可能会制定政策,要求评估ISCBP绩效的稿件报告某些背景特征,如所涉及的信息系统能力和接受的受训人员类型。该领域还可以考虑建立一个认证机构来评估ISCBP课程的严谨性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信